>On 19/03/2021 20:57, pbhagavat...@marvell.com wrote: >> From: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> >> >> Introduce event ethernet Rx adapter event vector capability. >> >> If an event eth Rx adapter has the capability of >> RTE_EVENT_ETH_RX_ADAPTER_CAP_EVENT_VECTOR then a given Rx >queue >> can be configured to enable event vectorization by passing the >> flag RTE_EVENT_ETH_RX_ADAPTER_QUEUE_EVENT_VECTOR to >> rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_conf::rx_queue_flags while >configuring >> Rx adapter through rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_add. >> >> The max vector size, vector timeout define the vector size and >> mempool used for allocating vector event are configured through >> rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_add. The element size of the >element >> in the vector pool should be equal to >> sizeof(struct rte_event_vector) + (vector_sz * sizeof(uintptr_t)) >> >> Application can use `rte_event_vector_pool_create` to create the >> vector mempool used for >> rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_conf::vector_mp. >> >> The Rx adapter would be responsible for vectorizing the mbufs >> based on the flow, the vector limits configured by the application >> and add the vector event of mbufs to the event queue set via >> rte_event_eth_rx_adapter_queue_conf::ev::queue_id. >> It should also mark rte_event_vector::union_valid and fill >> rte_event_vector::port, rte_event_vector::queue. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavan Nikhilesh <pbhagavat...@marvell.com> >> --- >> .../prog_guide/event_ethernet_rx_adapter.rst | 38 ++++++++ >> .../rte_event_eth_rx_adapter.h | 95 +++++++++++++++++++ >> lib/librte_eventdev/rte_eventdev.h | 30 +++++- >> lib/librte_eventdev/version.map | 2 + >> 4 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> > >Seems strange that you add the forward declaration of the symbol, >and you also detail the symbol in the map file, indicating how the >symbol should be treated.
I wanted to have only spec change here to make it easier for review, the actual implementation is in [4/8]. > >But the patch is missing the symbol implementation itself, it should be >here right? > I will add a skeleton implementation here. >
